Category Archives: Politics: National

Income: Inequality And Rising Wealth

Income Inequality

Rich Get Richer – Poor Get Poorer

Is this true?  If you read the news you’ll think that it is – but is it really the case?

The problem with the studies that look at this topic is that they measure groups of people over time and not individuals through a life cycle of earning.  For example, we would all agree that as a young man just leaving college I would earn a salary that might be the lowest I’ll ever see in my life.  Then, as I age, gain experience and win promotions that salary would grow peaking when I am near 55 or so.  After that I may slow down, retire even seeing my “income” plummet as I rely on a pension, savings or social security.

Nothing at all controversial.

Continue reading

IRS: Taregtting Conservatives And Liberals

IRS.1

IRS vs Bridgegate

I posted the difference in media coverage between the Chris Christie bridge scandal and the IRS targeting scandal.  I made the point that media coverage of the bridge scandal has dwarfed that of the IRS scandal in recent months.

In the comments nickgb called shenanigans base on the fact that the tails of a scandal are less covered than the beginnings of the scandal.

Full point.

Continue reading

Two Scandals: The Bridge And The IRS

Media Coverage.Bridge.IRS

Listen, I mentioned that government is coercion:

We allow ourselves to be governed in exchange for a certain degree of order.  We allow ourselves to be subject to the confiscatory practice of taxation in order to pay for that order, that law and order.

And we give power to men that we wouldn’t otherwise give.

Power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Continue reading

Obamacare Woes

Red Tape

This is a common story and is most likely mitigated:

David Miller, of Franklinton, says he has applied, canceled and reapplied for health insurance for his family 14 times. After weeks of technical glitches, he was finally able to select a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that would cover him, his wife and twin sons. However, he still encountered problems.

“We got to the very last step. We had it all set up, and when we hit the confirm button, then another technical glitch prevented us from being able to complete the process,” Miller said, adding that he has no idea if he and his family are covered. “Every time we think we’re getting close, then there’s another technical glitch, as they call it.”

No one denies that the roll-out of the service was a massive failure.  And, to their credit, the administration seems to have the front end fixed.

But this is the problem left unresolved:

Miller says he called Blue Cross Blue Shield and was told that his application has not been forwarded to them. He says he calls the Healthcare.gov helpline about every other day and regularly spends two to three hours on the phone waiting for and then talking with service representatives and their supervisors who are unable to tell him his status or how to proceed.

The insurance company doesn’t think that he has coverage.  That’s because the back end website structure isn’t communicating between all organizations.  The billing organizations are collecting money, the insurance companies aren’t receiving data and the consumer isn’t sure if they are getting the right information regarding subsidies or not.

This isn’t close to being over.

 

The Coming Financial Crisis – Retirement

Retirement

Retirement Is Our Next Financial Crisis

The last financial crisis we faced threatened the nature of  how we do business.  Some say that capitalism nearly failed.  And yes, it was bad – and continues to be bad.  However, are we facing a larger crisis in the coming years?

Continue reading

Obamacare – The Benefits

Health Care

This past Friday I posted on the problems that Obamacare is facing:

One of those problems is counter-intuitive.  The ACA is going to  force policies to rise.

These prices are only going to continue to rise as Obama’s target market shuns the the law opting for a fine that might not ever be levied – the young and the healthy are fleeing the scene of the crime.  This results in only the older and the sicker enrolling; the most costly of the people covered.  The only result is a rise in policy costs.

In addition to the costs associated with rising policies, there will be rising costs in other places as well.  However, these costs are GOOD costs:

 “The real big surprise was how much out-of-pocket would be required for our family,” said David Winebrenner, 46, a financial adviser in Lebanon, Ky., whose deductible topped $12,000 for a family of six for a silver plan he was considering. The monthly premium: $1,400.

While the health law makes many preventive services free — such as vaccines, blood pressure screening and mammograms — most medical care is paid out of pocket until the deductible level is reached. Some of the new plans offer limited coverage for certain services before a patient has met the annual deductible. These services can include primary care, some prescription drugs and routine care for common chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes.

We are never, EVER, going  to control the costs of medical care until we expose such care to the market.  Wanna have people spend less on health care?  Ask them to spend their own money.

“But Pino, if we allow the government to negotiate prices for the goods and services, we’ll SAVE money!”

Exhibition A:

Defense SpendingAnother industry where the government is the only player, and we can’t contain it either.

No, the answer isn’t government control of the health care industry – the answer is the exposure of the health care industry to the free market.  And high deductibles is the very best way to do that.

Obamacare’s Problems Are Just Beginning

Doctor

Health Care Problems Ahead

When I have criticized the ACA in the past, I’ve done so for different reasons; none of them being a horrible website roll out.  With such issues as fewer doctors, rising premiums and political exemptions – the law is riddled with problems.

ACA Forcing Premiums To Rise

One of those problems is counter-intuitive.  The ACA is going to  force policies to rise.

In all the discussions regarding the benefits of the new law, including “free” contraceptives, for example, it has never been brought up by the defenders of the law that nothing, of course, is free.  That contraceptive package will have to be paid for by somebody – maybe even you.

And how will that cost be recouped?  Why, by raising the premiums on people, of course:

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent.

These prices are only going to continue to rise as Obama’s target market shuns the the law opting for a fine that might not ever be levied – the young and the healthy are fleeing the scene of the crime.  This results in only the older and the sicker enrolling; the most costly of the people covered.  The only result is a rise in policy costs.

No – make no mistake, the problems with Obamacare have nothing inherent to a failed and botched website – that’s only gravy in the pursuit in demonstrating that this administration is dangerously inept at management issues.

 

 

Supply And Demand: Labor

Supply DemandThe minimum wage debate is heating up again.  On the Left, we have those that think the minimum wage needs to be raised.  Those of us on the right, disagree – we either think that the minimum wage is set just fine, or, if you are more honest, would like to see the concept abolished completely.

Sadly, the debate doesn’t come down to facts and science.  Rather, one side is using populist rhetoric while the other tries and tries to polish an unpopular message that setting a price floor results in surpluses.

Listen to the debates and you’ll hear what I’m talking about  Just this morning I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show and her panel was discussing the minimum wage.  The two supporters of the law invoked such constructs as “The minimum wage hasn’t kept pace with inflation” and “The purchasing power of the minimum wage is lower than it was 60 years ago”.

These things, while true, have nothing to do with the debate of whether or not a minimum wage is a good thing.

And it doesn’t end there.  I’ve heard the debate move into the fact that as the Holiday Season approaches, the republicans actually wanna end unemployment benefits just as people are trying to pay for heat in their apartments.  That as the gift giving intensifies, the republicans wanna take away the money that a growing number of people are dependent upon.

Again, tugs of populism that have nothing to do with the underlying facts of the minimum wage.

The above diagram is the Supply – Demand curve showing market equilibrium at point P and Q prime; where the two curves intersect.  Slide price up and demand is reduced while supply is increased.  And if that price happens to be above that market clearing price – you end up with a surplus of the commodity; in this case – labor.

This is undisputed.  There is no arguing this.

So, my conversation In Real Life are beginning to change when it comes to the minimum wage.  I’m beginning to point out that minimum wage jobs are NOT MEANT TO SUPPORT A FAMILY.  They are, in fact, meant to be transitory jobs that provide employers with inexpensive labor and provide laborers invaluable On The Job Training.

Looking further into the data suggests that less than 3% of wage earners make the minimum wage.  And of those, a decent number live in a household making the median income.

Another aspect of my conversations is this – and it’s critical – it MUST be acknowledged that both myself and my friend I’m debating admit that each of us is acting in manner that we think would benefit the marginal employee; the guy making the minimum wage.  Without such acknowledgement we are debating intention and not policy.  And when it comes to intention, I have no use for that brand of people who think that I want some people to have a worse life in order that I have a better one.

How Much To Eat Healthy

Fruit

Some time ago we discussed the cost of eating per month specifically as it pertains to food stamps:

We much more generous than the average as described by the democrats.In fact, an individual can earn up to $14,532 and still qualify for $200 a month.  To be sure, 14k a year isn’t much money at all; rent surely would take most of it.  But, 50 bucks is a bunch more than $31.50.  If I had an extra 20 to spend in my challenge I could almost certainly afford a twelve pack.

Where it gets really interesting, however, is at the 2 household range.  There a person can earn $19,680 a year and still qualify for $367.00 a month.  In fact, if approved, an individual could earn $30,000 and qualify for that amount.

As I mention in the post later on, “not the life of luxury”.

Now, what does it cost to go from a poor diet to a healthy diet?

If you want to eat a more healthful diet, you’re going to have to shell out more cash, right? (After all, Whole Foods didn’t get the nickname “Whole Paycheck” for nothing.)

But until recently, that widely held bit of conventional wisdom hadn’t really been assessed in a rigorous, systematic way, says , a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

So he and his colleagues decided to pore over 27 studies from 10 different developed countries that looked at the retail prices of food grouped by healthfulness. Across these countries, it turns out, the cost difference between eating a healthful and unhealthful diet was pretty much the same: about $1.50 per day. And that price gap held true when they focused their research just on U.S. food prices, the researchers found in their of these studies.

One dollar fifty American.

That’s less than $50 a month – the average amount played on the lottery.  And much MUCH less than the weekly food stamp challenge and certainly dramatically less than the amount allocated by the state currently.

The money line, pardon the pun?

“Just as an excuse to not eat healthy,” he says, “for most Americans, I think price is not an excuse.”

Indeed.

Ending The Filibuster

Filibuster

Harry Reid ended the filibuster today.  I know that he only changed rules that impact nominees other than Supreme Court Justices, but this is Washington – no good deed goes unpunished.  Even if the rules are changed back the last day of the session before republicans take the chamber, you can bet that this won’t be forgotten – the republicans will be highly motivated to not only respond in kind but conduct an escalation – in time, there will be no filibuster.

Okay, I guess.  There may be worse things.

I happen to believe in the idea that presidential nominees should be afforded the opportunity of a vote.  He did, after all, win.   Further, Ii think that votes should be brought before the chambers to be voted on.  Needing 60 to agree to vote on something that needs 51 is silly.

However, I also believe that the leaders of each chamber should be more willing to allow votes on issues that they don’t necessarily agree.  For example, the recent non-discrimination act for gay employees will never see a vote in the house.  I don’t like that.  And, similarly, Reid doesn’t bring up for votes issues that he personally disagrees with.  In fact, one of the reasons the filibuster has been used so often in recent years is that Harry fills the amendment tree preventing the republicans from amending bills.

So, what do people have to say about the nuclear option?

Here is Salon:

Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Democrats are fixing to “blow up 200 years of Senate history” just because they’re not getting their way on a handful of “radical” judicial nominees. On Capitol Hill, the threat of the “nuclear option” has created a sort of political ground zero, and activists on both sides believe that the way this thing plays out will control the shape of the federal judiciary — and with it, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — for decades to come.

Call it a primer on the judicial confirmation process. Call it what you get when you spend way too much time reading Riddick’s Senate Procedure. Just don’t call it the “nuclear option” — at least not when Harry Reid is around to correct you. The Senate majority leader doesn’t want his plan to sound so explosive, but be forewarned: Unless somebody blinks first, we’re in for a mind-warping set of unprecedented Senate maneuvers that could put Joe Biden in charge of deeming the filibuster “unconstitutional” — without a word from those folks in black robes across the street — and grease the way for each and every left-wing extremist Barrack Obama ever cares to put on a district court, an appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

And here’s The Hill:

“To change the rules in the Senate can’t be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” McConnell said.

“They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right,” he said.

And what did The Democrat have to say?

A filibuster allows any Senator to prevent a full vote by extending debate on an issue or a presidential appointee indefinitely and requires a supermajority of 60 votes to “break” the filibuster and force a vote. The ability of three-fifths of the Senators to end such debate — two-thirds, in the case of a motion to change Senate rules — is codified in the Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule 22, also known as “Precedence of Motions.”

… the Democrat majority, in an effort to push through Barack Obama’s far left-wing judicial nominees, sought to get rid of the filibuster via the “nuclear option,” which would have solidified absolute, one-party rule and allowed all of Bush’s nominees to go through with essentially only Republican approval — thus removing any reason for the minority party to even show up in the Senate chamber.

But unlike an ideologically-driven hack like Reid,  Mitch McConnell is a Senate purist who believes in the way the Senate has always run and the wisdom of its traditions, even if some of those will benefit the Democrat minority over the next few years.

Okay okay, those sources are accurately linked but  changed the names and parties to represent the opposite of reality.

These guys are all a bunch of pukes – both sides.  All of ’em.  They have all blocked nominations and they have all complained of the minority party having too much power.  But now Reid has done it, he’s broken the rule.  And the rule will be broken again – and the next time it will be pay back.